On Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 4:54:18 PM, Tab wrote:
TAJ> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 4:40:28 PM, Tab wrote:
>> TAJ> I'm not sure from reading the charter, but is CWT still allowed to be
>> TAJ> developed as a deliverable under the "WebFonts" line?
>> Its no longer a deliverable of the proposed Working Group.
>> The conformance requirement will be that WOFF must be supported and other formats may be supported. So implementations which plan to support it can of course do so. Just like they may already support other formats (EOT, CFF, raw TT/OT, SVG).
TAJ> Well, my question was whether or not it's allowed for the *FontWG* to
TAJ> work on it, not for browsers to implement it. The charter explicitly
TAJ> says that we shouldn't be working on any new formats other than WOFF.
Right. Whereas the previous version of the charter said the WG would work on CWT and WOFF.
TAJ> Is CWT new enough to be restricted by this,
Yes
TAJ> or is the fact that it's
TAJ> just a reinterpretation of an existing format enough to let it slide?
Let it slide meaning the WG would work on it? No, its no longer in scope.
Previously it was proposed that both formats would be in scope, and the WG would pick a winner when writing the conformance requirements. That effectively meant that the spec development effort would be split, and the eventual outcome, even if widely predicted, still uncertain.
Also, there are an increasing number of rendering implementations of WOFF and one implementation of CWT.
>> Are you aware of implementations which plan to add CWT support?
TAJ> Except for IE which will support it by default with no further effort
TAJ> (interpreting it as EOT), not as of yet. Unfortunately.
That was my impression also.
--
Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org
Technical Director, Interaction Domain
W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG